« Sustainability Webinar | Main | Next Webinar Monday »



Jessica Pachuca

I thought this article was interesting and emphasized the need for change in systems now. One of the parts I found intriguing was how it connected various environmental issues together. Prior to this, we had been reading about matters individually, and personally, I hadn't thoughtfully considered how they intertwined. In the chapter, it brought up the importance of trees in water systems and how deforestation leads to negative effects. In the article, it mentioned the role of climate change in fisheries. It almost seems as though we need to resolve large environmental issues in order to fully tackle others, which can make it overwhelming in wondering where to begin. Aside from this, but potentially related, why aren't policymakers focused on the long run? Clearly, the RBFM and MPA systems can collectively provide benefits for fisheries and the economy long term. While the article did mention hesitation because of unevenly distributed costs/rights, they also said this issue could be minimized in the allocation stage. So why is it that these systems aren't widely adopted? Do other potential negative impacts supersede the benefits? Is this a matter of politics? Is the investment not worth the long term?

Jackson Hotchkiss

One of the points that stood out to me most in this article was the difference in the biomass levels and health of fisheries in unregulated waters of developing vs more regulated waters of developed. In many cases, I can clearly see how unregulated waters can cause a problem due to exceeding the MSY. Yet one factor that should be considered is many times (as we have talked about in previous classes) developing or more poor areas receive a larger percentage of the burden than developed areas along the lines of Env impact. Therefore, I am not saying that regulation of the MSY is a bad thing whatsoever, but there are other underlying factors that lower retrievable biomass in many unregulated waters than some might originally think.

Another point I found interesting was the emphasis on Marine Protected Areas or MPA. The article made it pretty clear that the placement of an MPA was one of the best ways to make sure that fisheries get the best benefits possible. I thought it was interesting that even though an MPA was a good thing in many cases there could actually be an increase in catch outside the borders of the MPA due to spillover of fish. This makes me wonder if protecting one specific place really does that much? Similar to the idea that Jessica touched on above, maybe the best approach is to tackle more broadly instead of isolated locations. Not only do fish travel outside of the MPA but toxins and pollution can travel into the MPA at an amount that just can't be regulated. Therefore when looking at this topic it's hard for me to grasp how effective certain practices would actually be due to the surrounding Enivoroment possing constant threats.

Izzy Koziol

This article reiterates the main argument of the Tragedy of the Commons philosophy: open access resources are subject to overexploitation, and global fisheries exemplify this phenomenon. Most fisheries are open access or common-pool resources that may have some restrictions on inputs like seasons, but the open access equilibrium still results in overexploitation of the stock of fish, according to the article. The global ocean is the extreme of the open access problem because it does not have any regulations or property rights defining who can exploit its resources, or how much they can take. This is especially a problem because the inevitable loss of biodiversity, species abundance, and fish abundance threaten the future of human well being. The article emphasizes that the best way to combat the open access issue is to implement restrictions on access to fisheries. One specific solution is the creation of Marine Protected Areas which create invisible borders around spatial regions of the ocean in order to establish regulations that limit or prohibit human activities. These protections should allow fish biomass to increase and improve the health of fisheries. Although, the article argues, and I agree, that MPAs alone will not be sufficient at conserving fisheries. They should be established along with rights-based fishery management which can eliminate the issue of open access by allocating property rights that can be traded among fishery stakeholders. Attempts to privatize the ocean are necessary to protect fisheries from overexploitation.

Carter Dummett

For starters I was very surprised at the amount of unknowns associated with trying to determine the amount of fish/marine life there is and was harvested. The amount harvested on a large scale makes sense to me as large corporations need to communicate and track how much of a resource they are harvesting. It also makes sense that is harder to track on a smaller scale like with individual fisherman. I have taken fish from the sea according the local guidelines but it seems like ITQ and TURFS it can be hard to regulate. I have only been approached by environmental police once and I've been fishing hundreds of times. I can only imagine it how hard it would be to try and enforce area based fishing management in large areas especially when people just sneak in an dout of places that are already "protected" or "managed". The lack of mentioning smaller, simpler steps to take like limits and slot limits was also surprising to me as that seems like the most basic level of management that, again, like the rest of these, is hard to enforce but at least provides guidelines. I understand that it can be difficult as well to track the populations and keep it up to date as oftentimes the population number of a certain species might not be known until the year after when catch numbers and harvests are down. Our oceans and the open access that we have to it seems like the ultimate tragedy of the Commons. We are already beginning to feel its affects and will only continue to do so in the future if we do not make the necessary changes.


The shortsightedness of those involved in deforestation activities pertaining to the usual decision to engage in logging activities now because of the many private benefits of doing so as opposed to the one private benefit (more trees to log in the future) of logging later appears to be a very similar mindset of those involved in depleting open access or ineffectively managed fisheries. However, this issue appears to be magnified in the realm of fisheries because it’s a true tragedy of the commons scenario where every fisherman wants to maximize their profits and fish as much as possible. Unlike the logging situation, the depletion of fisheries seems to have a more negative effect on fishermen because they cannot restock the seas as loggers can replant trees and because there appears to be a threshold to where a fishery cannot recover after overfishing. The article does say that open access fisheries “leave the fishermen poorer than those that are effectively managed,” leading me to believe that fishermen in open access fisheries would probably want efficient regulations like RBFM unlike loggers because although in the short run it will lower profits, the long run benefits of a steady fish stock are not as distant and are beneficial directly to the fishermen unlike the long run benefits of forest preservation.

On another note, it appears almost impossible to effectively manage enough of the world’s fisheries because of how many there are, and figure 6 really shows how little regulation there is in the grand scheme of things. Though this article does offer many solutions to increasing regulation of fisheries, even if rules were implemented, I still do not believe that fishermen would follow the regulations because of a presumable lack of officials going out and actually regulating them. Additionally, the article ended upon a seemingly hopeful note that climate change could actually benefit fish stocks in the long run because of the reduction of fishing activities as a result of the initial depletion of fish stocks. However, I also do not think this is feasible because fish stocks are being drastically depleted today at presumably a similar rate and it does not appear that fish stocks today are able to rebound without a form of sufficient regulation. In other words, I do not see how things would be any different in this future scenario.


After reading this I talked to Gus Wise and Mark Lamendola about their thoughts on the issue as a result of their love of fishing. Buffalo Creek, a local wild trout fishery is used by both fly fishermen and bait fishermen alike. Some fishermen are known to take fish for their own consumption. While there is aesthetic and consumption pleasure in this, I do not think it is sustainable action for the water source. Although it is a common resource, there is not enough fish to maintain the resource while also engaging in catch and keep fishing. This lowers the value of the resource and as a result, Gus and Mark cannot catch as many fish.

Allie also brings up an important point that I was thinking about. Rules implemented on fisheries would have a hard time sticking I feel like. If there is not someone officially regulating these issues on the streams, what is to keep someone from abiding by them. Providing guidelines is a step in the right direction but finding ways to enforce them is a bigger problem as a result of it lying on self-compliance.

Grace A Stricklin

This article was especially interesting as it mentioned many of the things that impact fisheries other than simply the number of fish available or the way in which they are run. One section that was especially intriguing to me talked about how human competition can be detrimental to the benefits of fishery stakeholder of even well-managed fisheries. An activity called ‘derby fishing’ can occur when there is a catch quota; fishermen will race to catch their quota as they compete with others who are after the same fish. This derby fishing can lead to more injuries among fishermen and the shortened fishing period caused by this type of fishing can have negative impacts on the economic value of fisheries in which this occurs. The fact that even well-managed fisheries must also consider how the reactions of fisherman to their policies will further impact their fisheries is a clear example of how interconnected all the parts of the fishery business are with each other. The article did go on to offer some examples of how fisheries could avoid this problem (such as offering RBFM instead of open access fishing) which offers some hope for those well-managed fisheries with derby fishing problems.

Jack Lewis

I enjoyed this article on fisheries as I feel this is an issue that is often neglected because it doesn't directly affect humans in a huge way. It was interesting reading Carter's experience fishing and it gave me a better understanding of how environmental police in certain areas do not patrol very often. Also, knowing how people have the tendency to be rebellious, I am sure they find ways to fish in areas where it is not allowed. Another thing that came to mind when thinking of people who have had similar experiences to Carter is when we discussed in class how business who scale back production or change their operations for sustainable purposes when there is no regulation will go out of business. Relating this back, fishers who choose not to fish in certain areas lose out on the experience meanwhile others reap the benefits of a fun experience because there is no strict regulation. Lastly, it is so unfortunate that coastal fisheries are quickly declining and their decline is even more pronounced because they are most affected by climate change. It goes to show that environmental issues can always be tied back to one another.

Camryn Bostick

What I found the most interesting about this article was how the management type and efficiency of fisheries can affect not only life conservation, but also the living conditions and food security of those near the fisheries. However, the FAO's figures of fishing conditions is quite concerning, as 33% of stock is overexploited, which has is a figure that has been growing throughout the years. Also, even these numbers may still be incorrect, as fishery-specific estimates are often highly uncertain. In order to create more strictly managed fisheries, they offer the rights-based fishery management, which will be expected to both increase profit by up to 4 times the amount of biomass than expected under open fishing conditions, as well as increasing conservation. In turn, this would produce more food, profits and conservation benefits, which translates to more guaranteed long-term profits. The reason that ITQs have not been implemented for a majority of fisheries, however, are their relatively high management costs, but with global implementation, there will be a major rise in profit that will outweigh the costs of both sustainably fished and open ocean fished biomass.

AJ Mabaka

I think it's no surprise that governance over global fisheries proves to be an arduous task to say the least and I agree with the authors that good fisheries management practices have proven effective in meeting seafood demand, sustaining commercial fishing industries, etc. However, as the authors also pointed out, effective management does not always meet the interests of all fisheries stakeholders. This brings me to a point that Niquole Esters made during Monday's webinar, which was that there needs to be more of an incentive for all people to interact with fisheries in a more sustainably manner. The authors brought up some examples of this that were novel to me, like TURFs and RBFMs, which seem like they could help our relationship with harvesting fisheries to be more sustainable. However, as others and the authors have pointed out here, these means of fisheries management reforms can be quite difficult to regulate and maintain.

Also, I took issue with what the authors had to say about how climate change would impact global fisheries because I felt that they undervalued the degree of change that is projected (though I realize this article was trying to be more hopeful). Anyway, they mentioned that the overall "change in productivity [of the global oceans] is likely to be small," which I think much of recent research would reasonably argue against. Extensive overfishing of estuaries and embayments around the globe have severely weakened these vital nearshore ecosystems, which serve as significant nursery roles for a large majority of fish species and often support larger nearshore coastal food webs. The historic and continual overfishing of these regions, and the larger food webs they support, has and will continue to harm the productivity of the greater global oceans, especially when coupled with the millions of tons of pollutants that have begun to find their way into both these regions and some of the most remote areas in the oceans (e.g., plastic bags have been found 36,000 feet in Mariana's trench and inhalation/bioaccumulation of plastic kills hundreds of thousands of marine organisms a year). Not to mention, recent climate research studies have shown that the rate at which the global oceans are absorbing carbon (and other greenhouse gases) is causing a gradual but significant change in oceanic acidity (projected to be a ph of 8.0 or more for global oceans in 75 years). As a point of reference, we had a ph of about 7 before industrialization... thus, such a change in acidity would prove disastrous for marine life and the productivity of the oceans.

Nevertheless, I don't mean to paint the picture to be dreadful/full of despair, but I thought that the portion of the paper discussing threats to fisheries (specifically climate change) was deserving of more attention; and I really enjoyed this article as there was some novel fisheries management information that I think I could incorporate into my capstone.

AJ Mabaka

I also saw that a lot of people talked about issues with enforcing fisheries regulations. I think it's an interesting issue because even with seemingly effective fishery policies in place to strive for a sustainable relationship with this natural resource, there's often little to no enforcement of the policies or significant enough penalties to warrant abiding said policies. In fact, a documentary I watched on Netflix called Seaspiracy talks about the fact that "enforcers" of fisheries policies often get bribed, abused, and even killed, especially when fishing vessels make long trips out to sea. Clearly, incentivizing people to follow fisheries policies (that ideally are also effective) seems quite difficult, though socioally/economically perhaps there's a means of doing so. Like if consumers boycotted the consumption of a type of fish because its sustainable and the price of a fish were devalued to such an extent that it wasn't worth commercial harvesting, then maybe that fish stock would likely improve substantially. This has happened before (e.g. with dolphins or dolphin safe tuna) but doing so intentionally via eco-consumer driven conservation sounds pretty cool.

Claire Jenkins

I found this article written by Costello and Ovando extremely interesting and eye-opening. I was initially shocked when I read that about 80 MMT of wild seafood is extracted from the ocean every year, compared to global production of beef at 64 MMT. This seafood is a major source of protein, as well as livelihood for many poor households. The overexploitation of fish and the degradation of oceans is severely threatening the planet as a whole, but specifically developing nations. It was interesting to read that industrial fisheries, in developed nations, are well-managed and in somewhat good health, while coastal fisheries in poorer nations are in poor health. It is clear that governance plays a role in the health of our fisheries, and it is crucial to implement policies in order to sustain fisheries. Not only will effective fishery management benefit our ecosystems and preserve the environment, but it will also increase the food security and lives of citizens in these developing nations that are suffering more substantially. This article is extremely effective at laying out different policy options for the sustainable management of fisheries. Rights-based fishery management is of primary focus. We have talked a lot in class about the effectiveness of economic incentives, and RBFM, either through IQTs or TURFs, is an effective way to encourage people not to exploit the fisheries. I found the cost-benefit analysis that the authors did very compelling and persuasive in terms of why countries should implement RBFM. After reading this, I am shocked that 78% of global fish catch still comes from fisheries that have not yet adopted RBFM. The authors show us that when comparing the costs and the benefits, the net economic benefits of RBFM expansion would be $35 billion to $75 billion. I can see that many fishers would want to continue to operate in open-access fisheries, with no restrictions- no one is going to want to have added restrictions. However, I think it is crucial that we find ways to get more people to be open-minded and understand the benefits of this management structure. Fisheries could increase in value and food security and conservation could increase if we are able to associate property rights with fisheries.

Jacob McCabe

I enjoyed this article and the chapter because they are directly related to the economics of fisheries class that I'm currently taking with Professor Kahn. Based on this article I found hope in the future of fisheries as most of their lack of sustainability is found in management issues. In terms of the divergence of fisheries, I found it interesting that coastal fisheries are on the decline while more industrial fisheries have a better ability to adapt to variations in a changing world, such as the effects on climate change. With that being said, I agree with what AJ said regarding the minimization of the extent to which climate change will affect fisheries. I see climate change as a major factor in everyday life as we get deeper and deeper in to the hole we have dug ourselves into. In terms of industrial fisheries in the developed world, I was pleased with the fact that they are well-managed and sustainable. I found this to be an important model for sustainable fisheries in developing nations. Similar to some of the discussions we had in development economics, the progress of technology allows developing nations to "leapfrog" some of the more unsustainable technologies of the past. With that being said, this action requires the support of developed nations that, as we know, are not always eager to buck up.

Alice Chen

After reading this article, I definitely saw the need for better-managed fisheries. It's interesting seeing how fisheries have diverged, especially with fisheries in the developed world being in better condition than those in the developing world. It goes to show that this is another hump to overcome. This paper mainly discussed how RBFM can provide long-run economic incentives, and I think this is the best way to control the problems with open-access and overcapacity. I do however also believe that it is important to also use MPAs and new technologies as well. While the paper discusses that MPAs can solve the fish problem, but not the fisheries problem, I think that coupled with the other strategies, both the fish and fisheries problem can be mitigated. And, the incentives of increased value, increasing food supply etc could even go up more. One problem that made me wonder was how do we manage these fisheries that have not yet adopted RBFM? A lot of these countries have low-governance, so it seems like it would be challenging to implement new regulations. It also seems difficult since people generally don't like having regulations, especially when there's a fear that this cause a decrease in earnings (even if that is not the case).

Cal Christianson

I thought that the amount of wild seafood harvested every year was a shocking number. I was aware that fishing provides a large amount of protein calories in the world diet, especially in developing countries. But it is still surprising the sheer amount that is fished. It makes the task of protecting aquatic ecosystems even more important. Not only do so many calories come from the sea, it also is the driving force of many economies. But it is also very difficult to properly protect. Because of the nature of such ecosystems, collecting the necessary data is difficult. As the article notes, counting fish accurately is almost impossible. We also need to accurately value such ecosystems. The proper value of any ecosystem is more than just the resources within. But in most countries, the groups in power only value the resources. And without a proper way of collaboration between countries, the situation ends up being similar to a tragedy of the commons.

Andrew Arnold

This is an example of the tragedy of the commons. My mind immediately thought of the Chesapeake Bay because being form Richmond, it is something I've heard about my whole life. There have been problems with people over harvesting blue crab especially in the bay. While fishing licenses are required, the bay is large and illegal activities are inevitable. This is a problem that affects a lot of people, but in reality acts like a public good between people over harvesting crabs and polluting the area. That is where the principal of the tragedy of the commons comes into application with that example. This also made me think of Professor Lisa Greer's class on climate change that I am currently in. I have learned how fragile coral reefs are when it comes to the pH and temperature of the water, and they house a large number of species of fish. Reading in the article the massive amount of fish we harvest, and seeing the trends our ocean is heading in a number of areas. I am concerned about our supply of seafood being threatened in the future.

Valerie Sokolow

This reading was interesting to me because of the depth it goes into and how interconnected economics becomes with ecology for this particular issue. I took Dr. Humston’s Ecological Modeling and Conservation Strategies course last spring term, and throughout the reading I was constantly thinking of how I would model things in Vensim. With this modelling in mind, I felt like I was thinking about the empirical model through a different lens. Clearly this problem has many ecological/population biology issues, but it is also an economics problem. I’m curious about what fields tend to deal with this issue the most. In particular, in the US, what group/office has the most influence on fishery management policies? Is it primarily economists, ecologists, other related fields, or teams made up of all of these types of professions? The reading also mentioned issues with fishery management on a global scale, so my question becomes even more difficult – who is it up to?

Hayden Roberts

This article showed the increasing gap between wealthy and developing countries. In the articles that we have read, we are seeing how this gap affects conservation as developing countries tend to use natural resources more recklessly as they depend on heavy consumption to support their economies. This is the case with the fisheries off the coast of developing countries. Wealthier countries have more leeway to implement conservation strategies such as rights-based approaches or RBFM's. Unless developing countries can start to transition to sustainable approaches to fishing, there will be irreversible damage to their fisheries which happen to be in some of the most important regions for fish harvesting. The article suggested some alternative approaches but also stated that none of these approaches on their own would be enough to resolve the issue. I would be very interested in discussing a realistic strategy for developing countries to transition to. Obviously, if this issue were simple, it would be solved.

Josh Fingerhut

This article did a great job of detailing the health of global fisheries. Based on what we have learned so far in this class, I was unsurprised to see that the fisheries with regulations and active stock management were generally more healthy and more economically viable than unregulated fisheries. Fisheries are a natural resource with public good characteristics such as a forest and therefore, based on what we have learned thus far in class, it follows that unregulated access will often lead to unsustainable use.

One part of the article that caught my attention was the author's description of "derby fishing". This phenomenon occurs when regulations create a very short fishing season or impose a general cap on the total catch. This causes fishers to go to great lengths to catch as much as they can in this limited time. I decided to do some extra research to dive deeper into the dangerous effects of "derby fishing". While the Bureau of Labor Statistics already ranks commercial fishing as the most dangerous occupation at 141 deaths per 100,000 per year, Alaskan crab fishing, a "derby fishery" referenced by the article, results in over 300 fatalities per person per year. These are often brutal deaths with over 80% caused by "drowning or hypothermia". Other dangerous effects such as severe sleep deprivation occur as a result of the constraints put in place by the regulations. The existence of derby fishing is a warning that regulations that may be effective in managing the health of natural resource stocks are not always the best option from a socioeconomic perspective. It is important to find solutions that keep the safety of both the worker and the environment in mind.

Merritt McCaleb

It was interesting reading this paper having attended the webinar about global fisheries from earlier this week. Prior to attending the webinar, I didn’t know much about fisheries, and I hadn’t realized the importance in their essential contributions to food security and poverty alleviation. For example, I learned that every 3 people out of 7 depend on seafood as their primary source of protein. Therefore, this paper merely extended my curiosity, as I now better understood how vital a role fisheries play. Costello and Ovando examine how fisheries, which illustrate the economics principle of the Tragedy of the Commons, serve as open-access resources and are depleted due to over-exploitation. To solve such over-exploitation, the article mentions the use of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which would create sections of the ocean where human activity is limited; however, this solution alone is not enough. Further, while this isn’t a policy idea, more people need to be made aware of how vital fisheries are to global well-being. For example, as someone who doesn’t fish nor lives in a coastal area, I rarely think about fisheries and the impacts that over-production has. We need to shift our focus to increasing our understanding of how to create rights-based approaches to managing fisheries, because if we do so, then the fisheries will most likely experience higher profits and, according to the authors, “achieve greater conservation outcomes.” Otherwise, we’ll suffer the consequences.

Trip Wright

While reading, all I could help but think of was The Tragedy of the Commons philosophy; what occurs when resources that are public good are perceived to be open to anyone, anytime, and in any quantity? Overexploitation. This issue is complicated by the fact that roughly 97% of the world's fishermen live in developing countries. Additionally, the fishing market is HUGE with approximately 146 billion USD of fish traded in 2014. This market helps generate lots of necessary income for developing nations, contributing to their GDPS, and promoting economic growth. However, fish are a limited resource despite how many live in the sea. In fact, the act of fishing combined with trading on the international fish market is a double-edged sword. On one side, the market yields great returns for some of the world's hardest workers, while at the same time depleting the precious resource. Further, developing countries continue to subsidize fishing operations, which promotes overfishing operatives.

I became intrigued at the possibility of marine protected areas (MPAs) and their impact on the fisheries economy. I thought of the Belize shark breeding area that had been cited in class and how the government there imposed prohibiting shark fishing within the region of local reefs. The total protected area is about 1,500 square miles, which displayed a powerful exercise of government power and MPAs to preserve biodiversity and conservation. MPAs not only focus on protecting fisheries but consider the impact of increased conservation. A refuge is established that allows for interbreeding of fish and increased biomass to the point where fish begin to "spill" out of the MPA zone and continue to spread its positive effects into other coastal regions. Perhaps what's more interesting is when MPAs are combined with RBFM. Studies have found that fishing on MPA borders has increased catch rates of fishing crews generating fishing benefits while maintaining conservation benefits. It should be noted that collecting data on such policy implementation is difficult and requires heavy costs, however, technological development is alleviating this concern, particularly with enforcing the protection policies given that MPAs or RPFM can span across large swaths of ocean. I am curious to view how technology will continue to impact the fishing market. On one hand, it will be "pro-conservation," allowing policies to be followed more efficiently and collecting data on fishing patterns (particularly overfishing) to make better predictions for tomorrow. However, fishing cooperations could also enact similar technology to expedite their fishing processes to maximize profits and keep costs low. There is definitely a race occurring in the world of commercial fishing, fueled by corporate interest and greed, yet conservation efforts are looking optimistic to live in a better tomorrow.

Belen Delgado Mio

This article demonstrated that fisheries management is incredibly important for international economies, especially economies in developing countries. If these fisheries are mismanaged due to a lack of governance, these fisheries can quickly deteriorate. This portion of the text reminded me of the problems that are associated with the tragedy of the commons, because so many of these problems stem from a lack of government regulations. It also demonstrates the intersection between an ecological problem to economic and political issues. It's clear to me that stricter regulations are necessary to keep economies that are dependent on these fisheries from collapsing. As we've mentioned in class previously, no one will follow rules that can't be enforced unless those rules would somehow benefit them.

Matthew Todd

This article paints an optimistic picture about ways we can adapt to mitigate environmental damage. The evidence shows that conservation efforts over the past 20 years have had great success, and show us that fisheries can be managed effectively with adequate regulations in place.

I found the concept of RBFM to be especially interesting. By providing economic incentives for sustainability, we are able to preserve institutions that will feed generations going forward for a relatively low-cost today. We want fishermen to be incentivized to be long-term fishers, and economic incentives seem like an effective way to accomplish this goal.

Clara Ortwein

In reading this paper, I was particularly interested in the part about how climate change will complicate these management systems. As fish populations migrate poleward, the people around the tropics who rely on fish to eat will obviously be greatly affected, and this paper made me feel pretty hopeless about this reality. Since this is on a global scale, the externalities of any greenhouse gas emitting processes are disproportionately going to negatively effect them, whereas polar regions will see increases in activity. I wonder how it would be possible to account for this migration with these management systems, and if there could ultimately be some sort of benefit that comes back to the regions closer to the tropics if they adhere to regulations and do not harvest greedily. For example, while one population has the greatest activity, a larger governing body between countries will invest in RBFM/MPA there. If they do not overharvest, then as the fish further poleward, the next countries will be able to benefit. Maybe there could be some sort of return as incentive to the previous adherent countries that have now lost the population. This way, economies that relied more on fish can be supported in their transition, and there will be less of an incentive to overharvest while they are still there. I was also interested in the idea of technology as a way to track fishing activity with less costs. It seems to me that this would be the biggest problem to accurately assessing fisheries and marine areas, it is difficult for me to imagine how this could be accomplished. It reminds me of the difficult of tracking deforestation in the Amazon, but being able to get an accurate understanding would no doubt increase the quality of RBFM plans and other complements such as technology and MPAs.

Allyssa Utecht

This article highlighted the importance of economic incentives, primarily rights based ones, in helping promote sustainable management. The management style of fisheries is directly correlated with their health and their maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Effective management can not only benefit the environment and fish population numbers, but it can also improve human food security and livelihood. Proper fishery management can adequately raise biomass, lower fish mortality rates, and increase economic value. The article discussed marine protected areas (MPAs), which outline border around ciriticla portions of the ocean that restrict or prohibit fishing there. However, the article declares that protecting areas and studying data aren’t going to save fisheries; rights-based management is our best option. For the 80 million metric tons of seafood caught in the wild every year, the health and stability of ocean ecosystems is absolutely critical.
Previously, I had never really thought about how hard it would be to accurately measure fishery health and assess fish numbers/populations. The article presented an interesting point that it is really difficult to gather accurate data on fish populations due to the nature of deep oceans and the movement of fish. It is also hard to produce on overall analysis of global fisheries, because there is a stark difference between those that are well managed and those that are poorly managed. People often assume that all human intervention in the environment is bad, but when food collection is inevitable, it is critical to employ sustainable, proper management practices. I think Jackson made an important point that while the article does frequently point out that the fisheries in developing countries are often the ones faring worst, it is important to look into the reasons behind this. Rather than solely blaming poor management practices, one could look into how developing countries often disproportionately feel the impacts of climate change and ecological disasters, which directly affect the health of fisheries.

The comments to this entry are closed.